Wednesday, August 29, 2007


Here we go again. Another prominent Republican conservative advocate of virtuous family values has bitten the dust. U.S. Senator Larry Craig got himself arrested for lewd conduct in a public restroom. Sex solicitation in the men's shitter - how low can you get?

Responding to numerous complaints of inappropriate sexual conduct in a particular men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, an undercover police sergeant was assigned to bust miscreants in that facility. Last June, while the officer was sitting in one stall during his shithouse stakeout, Sen. Craig entered an adjoining stall, sat down on the crapper, slid his right foot underneath the partition to touch the officer's left foot, then reached his left hand (the officer saw Craig's wedding band) down to brush the underside of the partition.

The officer, his foot being well inside his stall, then arrested the senator for lewd conduct. Sen. Craig accused the officer of entrapment and of being the one who solicited sex. Denying that he had brushed his hand on the underside of the partition, he told the officer "you saw something that didn't happen," Nevertheless, Sen. Craig pled guilty in August to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct.

When news of his arrest became public some two months later, the senator denied being gay and vehemently insisted he did not engage in any inappropritate behavior. He claimed it was all just a misunderstanding and that he only pled guilty so it would all go away. Now he claims to be the victim of a dumb (he earned a master's degree) cop's imagination and insists the only mistake he made was to plead guilty to an offense he did not commit. Liar, liar!!!

In addition to his protestations of innocence, the good senator claimed he was also the victim of a five-month long "witch hunt" by his local newspaper, The Idaho Statesman. After the lewd conduct arrest became public, The Idaho Statesman then published allegations that Craig previously had oral sex with a 40-year old professinal man in a restroom at Washington's Union Station. Whopee!!!

The senator's defenders question the undercover sergeant's judgement resulting from some innocuous foot and hand movements. They should wake up and smell the roses. Police officers trained to work the shithouse stakeout know lewd conduct for what it is and do not make such arrests unless they are convinced the charges will stand a good chance of holding up in court. Men's restrooms in transportation terminals, public parks and shopping malls are often used by gay men for a quickie oral sex encounter.

In the '50s and '60s, when I worked the streets, there was so much lewd conduct by gay men in California's public park restrooms that the men's rooms, not the women's, were constructed with false ceilings which allowed officers to hide up there, observe any lewd conduct through peepholes, and make the appropriate arrests, of which there were many. Civil libertarians eventually convinced the courts to rule that peeping-tom cops hiding in false restroom ceilings constituted an unlawful invasion of privacy.

Sen. Craig is just the latest fallen member of the fraternity of social conservatives who trumpet the virtues of family values. There was Ted Haggert, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Reverend Haggert, who had also been the religious adviser to President Bush, had a three-year sexual relationship with male prostitutes and was a user of crystal meth. And, there was U.S. Senator David Vitter, another staunch social conservative family man, who was exposed as a phony for having engaged in sex with Wahington prostitutes.

Why were Craig, Haggert and Vitter such ardent champions of family values? These consevative hypocrites used the oldest trick in the world - strongly support traditional morals and publicly condemn other people's behavior, like infidelity and gay life styles, thereby covering up their own participation in the very same behavior. Hmmm, how many other family values trumpeting social conservatives are out there having sex in a men's shitter?

Monday, August 27, 2007


Outsiders keep butting into the way Texas treats its criminals. Recently, the European Union called on Texas to stop an execution. And now, a Maryland author condemns the way inmates, particularly those on death row, are treated in Texas prisons.

The European Union, on the eve of the 400th Texas execution since the death penalty was reinstated in 1982, called on Governor Rick Perry to put an end to this practice. The European Union urged Gov. Perry "to exercise all powers vested in his office to halt all upcoming executions and to consider the introduction of a moratorium in the stae of Texas."

To the governor's credit, his office told the European Union that this was none of its business. "230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yolk of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas."

The execution went on as scheduled. This was not the first time the European Union has tried to stop executions in Texas. In 1998, along with other death penalty abolitionists, the Eropean Union called on Texas not to execute Karla Faye Tucker, a notrious cold-blooded pickax murderer. Tucker, who found religion on death row (don't they all?), was also executed as scheduled. Justice was served when Governor (now President) Bush rejected all pleas on her behalf, including one from the Pope in Rome.

Now, along comes Dave Zirin, an author of sports books who resides in Maryland. Zirin has become the pen-pal of a Texas death row inmate. He got pissed off when Texas correction officials barred one of Zirin's books which he tried to send to his pen-pal. The authorities were concerned that several passages in his book could incite inmates to rebel against prison rules. In an op ed piece in yesterday's Houston Chronicle, Zirin criticized the treatment of Texas prizon inmates. He also slammed Gov. Perry for executing 159 murderers since he took office in 2001.

Zirin's op ed piece blasted Texas officials for "the fact that the people on the (death) row have no civil rights, no access to radio or television, or even arts and crafts." Well, pardon me. Zirin must think people are on death row for singing off-key in a church choir. Zirin writes that the banning of his book "reveals how aware Lone Star jailers are of how inhumanely they treat their prisoners." Do the complaints of an imprisoned pen-pal qualify this Maryland sports writer as an expert on Texas jails?

I have this to say to the European Union, the Pope, Zirin, and all the other death penalty abolitionists from outside the state - BUTT OUT !!! You have no business sticking your nose into the internal affairs of our state. Don't worry about how we handle our affairs. The United States Supreme Court will keep us from mistreating our prison inmates and ensure that all those on death row have received every protection afforded by our laws. Look to solve the many problems in your own back yard.

Thursday, August 23, 2007


Last night I was privileged to address over 500 diners at the annual conference banquet of a state narcotic officers association. The next time I wear the suit I was wearing, I will probably be in a box. Anyway, the occasion reminded me of some resarch I did several years ago on what, if anything, dopers and dope dealers have in common.

As you may know, college professors are expected to conduct research and have their findings published if they want to keep their teaching positions. In the academic community it's "Publish or Perish." My study on the commonalities of dopers and dope dealers was empricical, rather than scientific. My study was done while accompaning narcotic officers as they conducted numerous drug raids and as they arrested lots of dopers and dope dealers.

What I found was amazing. It seems that the mothers of almost every doper and dope dealer had given the same names to their offspring. Those names were not "Billy Bob" or "Jesus Miguel." Empirical evidence has disclosed that the name commonly given was "Mother Fu--er" and which I will refer to from now on as "M.F." for brevity purposes.

How did I arrive at this finding? Apparently, in today's politically correct society with its demand for a kinder gentler police force, police officers must have been instructed to address citizens by their names whenver possible. Time after time, I heard officers calling dopers and dope dealers by their names. Following are just a few of the cheerful greetings I recorded.

"This is the police. We have a search warrant. Open the door, M.F." "On the ground, M.F." "Stop M.F., or I'll shoot." "Drop that gun, M.F." "Hey M.F., don't talk Mexican." "What did you call me, M.F.?" "Listen M.F., shut up." "Hey M.F., get out of the car and on the ground." "Gotcha M.F., you're busted."

I could go on and on, but now you know how I arrived at my findings. When my left-wing colleagues saw the results of my study, they became apoplectic. Those commies felt compelled to debunk my research. I think their study was flawed because they only contacted their dope dealers. In any case, this is what they found - the majority of police officers were also named "Mother Fu--er" by their mothers.

That was not the first time those commies tried to debunk one of my studies. I once surveyed hundreds of police officers to detect similarities among common citizens. The study revealed that many citizens appeared to have been named "Asshole" by their mothers, with "Dickhead" being the next most popular given name. My left-wing colleagues countered with a study of commonalities among police officers. They found that ALL police officers were named "Asshole."

Come to think of it, I remember that many of those left-wingers were also named "Asshole." "M.F." and "Asshole" appear to be our country's most popular given names. Say what? Did I just hear you say those commies have all called me "Mother Fu--er?" I am so shocked that the only words I can find to express myself are those of the immortal Jackie Gleason in his role as Sheriff Buford T. Justice - "Sumbitch, what the hell is the world coming to?"

Sunday, August 19, 2007


Hillary Clinton is an ambitious woman and a smart presidential candidate. So far, she has not made any mistakes in her campaign for the nations's highest offfice. Among the other candidates, Hillary is clearly the queen bee of the democrat hive. National polls give her a substantial lead over her competitors. Her support comes mostly from women. Given Mrs. Clinton's marital history, I find it hard to believe that any self-respecting woman would ever support her candidacy.

Hillary's husband, former President Clinton, has cheated on her numerous times. There was the affair with Gennifer Flowers, who claimed it lasted for 12 years. Good old Bill first claimed he did not even know Flowers. When she produced a telephone tape recording in which each called the other "honey" several times, Bill remained silent. Hillary, on the other hand, brushed the recording off by exlaiming that "honey" was a common way Southerners addressed each other. Yeah, right.

Then there was the Paula Jones affair. She claimed that Bill sexually harrassed her in a hotel room. Bill denied it. Two state troopers supported her allegations. She sued and received an $850,000 out-of-court settlement paid for by Bill's political supporters. Hillary responded to Jones' charges by exclaiming that she and Bill were the victims of a "vast right wing conspiracy." Bill and Hillary obviously had their personal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" agreement, an arrangement which the President also applied to gays in the military.

Being Jewish, I was pleased to see that Bill Clinton had a close relationship with Jews - well that is, with at least one Jew. While at "work" in the Oval Office, good old Bill received several blow jobs from Monica Lewinsky, a young White House intern. Who can forget Bill wagging his finger at a national television audience and proclaiming "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Yeah, right, it was all just a vast Jewish conspiracy.

More noteworthy is Bill's purported encounter with Juanita Broaddrick, a nursing home operator. She claimed that in 1978, when then Arkansas Attorney General Clinton was campaigning for governor, he forcibly raped her in a Little Rock hotel room. At the time, she did not report it to the police, fearing no one would have believed that the Attorney General had raped her. Bill denied having been in Little Rock at the time, but State Police records and the hotel registry revealed he was there. Several well-respected investigative journalists, who were skeptical at first, now believe Broaddrick's rape account was credible.

Vast right wing conspiracy or not, why in the world would Hillary remain married to a man who has cheated on her repeatedly? Many say it is because she really loves the man. Yeah, right. A wife might forgive her husband once, and possibly even twice, but any self-respecting woman would have thrown her husbnand out on his ass and headed straight to divorce court after a third transgression. My take is that Hillary stayed with Bill only because it furthered her personal political ambitions. Love's got nothing to do with it.

So, why would any self-respecting woman vote for another woman who, in order to serve an ambitious personal political agenda, threw her own self-respect out the window? There can be only one answer. Women are so desperate to have one of their own gender elected President, that they will disregard Hillary's lack of character. Come on ladies, get real - Hillary does not deserve your support.

Monday, August 13, 2007


I've been really dissapointed in the field of presidential hopefuls, both democarat and republican. My preference, John McCain, seems to be dead in the water. Guiliani supports gun control, so the only way he'll get my vote is if he is the republican nominee and Hillary, who would never ever get my vote, is the democrat nominee.

Flip-flop Romney has flopped with me because he flipped his stance on immigration, abortion, health care, gun control and other issues. The second tier republicans are a bunch of also-rans. Obama, as you know from one of my recent blogs, has a severe case of foot-in-mouth disease. Edwards is too far left for me. Biden suffers from diarrhea-of-the-mouth. I could vote for Richardson, but he's not going to get the democrat nomination. The rest of the democrats are hardly worth considering.

Back to Mitt Romney. He has five grown sons, ages 26 to 37. Because he opposes withdrawing our troops from Iraq, he was asked why none of his sons were in the military, serving our country. His answer was absolutely astounding. He stated that his sons were serving their country by helping him campaign for the presidency. This begs the question - is that any way to serve your country?

How can one serve his country? Numero uno is to join the military, risking life and limb in defense of our country and its national interests. When I joined the army during WWII, I was paid (if my memory hasn't failed me) $36 a month and there was an expectation that I could get my ass shot off. Today, because ours is an all-volunteer military, the pay is somewhat competitive with that of the private sector. Many join our armed forces to obtain college benefits. If they have the intelligence required for college, they've got to realize that by joining the military, they may be required to wage war and to kill or be killed.

There are other ways to serve our country, but they pale by comparison to service in our military. Police officers, federal law enforcement officers and firefighters serve our country. Holding public office is a way of serving the country. Service in the Border Patrol or the National Park Service are other ways. Service in the Peace Corps and its domestic counterpart, the Americorps, in no way compares to service in our military where one may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice.

This brings me back to that flip-flopping phony Romney again. The audacity of the man's statement that his five grown sons are serving their country by helping him campaign for the presidency is beyond comprehension. Even if Romney had never flip-flopped on any issue, that statement alone would keep me from ever voting for him, Hillary as his opponent notwithstanding. He has insulted and belittled every member of our military. The Romney boys serving their country, my ass!

Saturday, August 11, 2007


Our federal income tax system should be changed, if not eliminated. The current system causes the government to lose trillions of dollars in tax revenue through the use of loopholes big enough for an 18-wheeler to drive through and which serve to enrich accountants, tax preparers, and tax lawyers. Everytime Congress has "reformed" the income tax, special interest lobbyists have made sure that loopholes remain for the benefit of their clients.

Do the rich pay their fair share of taxes? The answer to this question cannot be answered with a straight yes or no. The rich do pay a disproportionate share of taxes, but they escape having to pay even more through the use of exemptions and loopholes, which are not beneficial to the average taxpayer. Corporations can reduce their taxes by setting up "headquarters" in Caribbean tax havens.

The income tax just isn't fair. It cheats the government, as well as the average taxpayer. It needs to be changed, or better yet, eliminated. The current system of tax brackets and exemptions should be eliminated. The tax brackets should be replaced with four distinctive income ramges. One bracket would be a poverty level income bracket, while the other three would cover low, middle and high income levels.

People in the poverty bracket would not pay any income taxes. Those with low incomes would only have to pay a small percent of their income in taxes, those in the middle group a larger percent, and those in the high group a yet larger percent of their income. Income ranges in the four brackets can be determined by Congress and should be adjusted every so many years to account for changes in the buying power of the public.

All exemptions for individual taxpayers should be eliminated except in cases of catastrophic medical expenses and catastrophic property losses, such as those resulting from hurricanes and other disasters. Corporations doing business in this country should not be exempt from paying a portion of their taxes because their headquarters are elsewheres. And, corporations should not be allowed any deductions other than for expenditures used to modernize or expand their businesses and to repair or replace facilities damaged or destroyed by natural disasters.

Better yet, the income tax should be eliminated and replaced with a "value added" tax system, the system by which people in most European countries are taxed. A value added tax system uses a national sales tax to produce revenue for the government. In that system, everyone pays their fair share of taxes. And in that system, there would be no need to have a large internal revenue agency.

A value added tax system would shrink the Internal Revenue Service from a gargantuan bureaucracy to a small collection agency and eliminate the need for individual income tax forms, tax accountants, tax preparers and tax lawyers. Everyone, no matter their level of income, would pay a percentage of their purchases in taxes. Every corporation and organization, including churches, would be taxed for their purchases. Then, if groceries, medicines and medical care were exempted from the value added tax, that would constitute a fair taxation system.

Friday, August 03, 2007


A little political discourse, if you please. On the Democratic side of the presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of unintentional, but welcome help from Barack Obama. Thanks to Obama, Hillary continues to widen her lead in the national polls.

Yo momma loves Obama. Obama Girl has a crush on Obama. But, Hillary and Bill - they've gotta be wild about Obama's tongue. Lately, it seems that almost every time Obama opens his mouth on foreign policy, he trips over his own tongue. He's got the fastest tongue in the west - like a Formula 1 race standing start, it gets away well ahead of his brain.

In a recent debate, Obama said that if elected president, he would soon meet with the much hated leaders of Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela, each without preconditions. In one fell swoop, Obama lost the State of Florida by his desire to talk with Castro. He didn't help himself with the Jewish vote either by wanting to talk with Ahmadinejad of Iran, who has vowed to vaporize Israel.

On a later occasion, Obama said he would disengage our troops in Iraq and shift our military focus to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Then comes the zinger - Obama warned General Musharraf, the Pakistani president, that he would order American forces into Pakistan unilaterally if that country failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists. Nevermind that an uninvited incursion would topple our ally Musharraf who is barely hanging onto power against an opposition which may not be friendly to us, or that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

The most recent foreign policy gaffe came when he answered a question about his possible use of nuclear weapons. Obama answered that he would never resort to the use of nuclear arms - and then, after a prolonged pause while his brain slowly caught up to his tongue, he stuttered to add "involving civilians." Hillary then clobbered Obama for telling our enemies they need not fear our nuclear might even though she had previously declared she would not use nuclear weapons either.

Obama has also made notable gaffes on any number of subjects. For instance, complaining to an Iowa farm group about the rise in grocery prices when prices for their crops had not risen, Obama asked, "Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" Duh. That group of farmers grew corn and soybeans, not arugula, a herb of the mustard family. And to them, Obama didn't make any sense because there is no Whole Foods store anywhere in Iowa and many of those farmers had never heard of arugula before.

His defenders attribute Obama's gaffes to inexperience. To that I would say lack of experience is not the problem - Obama's problem is that he puts his mouth into motion before he puts his brain into gear. Or, he may have a debilitating illness - foot-in-mouth disease.

In just one week of foreign policy statements, Obama went from saying he would sit down with our enemies, to saying he would attack one of our allies, to saying he would take the decades-old nuclear option off the table. His mesmerized supporters, who are hoping for a new beginning from an Obama presidency, will soon awaken to the fact their beloved candidate is more hype than hope.